Parole Board Decision

IN THE MATTER of the Corrections Act 1997

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Parole by Johnston Matthew Douglas

05 December 2008

REASON FOR DECISION

On 28 August 2000 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of the following crimes :

(a) Murder contrary to s158 of the Criminal Code;

(b) Arson contrary to s268 of the Criminal Code.

In relation to the above crimes the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of sixteen (16) years to date from 27 July 2000 which was the date that the Applicant was first taken into custody.

On 14 April 2003 the Applicant appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court and was convicted of the following offences:-

(a) Burglary;

(b) Stealing.

In relation to the above offences the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three (3) months. That sentence of imprisonment was ordered to be served cumulatively upon the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him on 28 August 2000.

No specific order was made in relation to the Applicants eligibility for parole and as such the applicant became eligible to be considered for parole after serving eight (8) years and three (3) months of the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him. As such the Applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 26 October 2008.

The Board has been provided with documentation which fully outlines the factual circumstances surrounding the offences of burglary and stealing.

The Board has been provided with the Comments on Passing Sentence made by Justice Crawford (as he then was) when sentencing the Applicant in relation to the crimes of murder and arson. The Comments on Passing Sentence fully outline the factual circumstances surrounding the crimes committed by the Applicant.

The Board has received advice from the Victims Assistance Unit that a number of victims are registered in relation to the crimes committed by the Applicant.

The Victims Assistance Unit initially had difficulty in contacting the Registered Victims but after a concentrated effort the victims were located.

The Board has been advised that the registered victims do not wish to place any further materials before the Board.

However, the Board has carefully considered the Victim Impact Statements provided in the matter of Hind (Co – Accused). There is no doubt that the Applicants crime has had a significant psychological impact upon the deceased’s grandmother, mother and siblings.

The impact upon the deceased’s family is significant and the psychological effects are ongoing. In any application for parole the Board is required to take into account a significant number of statutory criteria. The impact upon the victims of the crime committed by an Applicant is only one of the statutory criteria the Board is to have regard to.

The victims of the Applicants crime have requested specific conditions attached to the Applicants parole which will prevent him from having contact with them. In the circumstances the Board is of the view that it is appropriate that such conditions attach to the Applicants parole.

In considering the Applicant’s application for parole the Board has taken into account the relevant statutory criteria which it is required to do so pursuant to the Corrections Act 1997.

The Board has taken the following matters into account when assessing the Applicant’s application for parole :

a. The comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by his probation officer.

b. The Applicant’s prison record which can be described as exemplary.

c. The fact that the Applicant has undertaken a number of educational courses whilst in prison.

d. The Applicants prison file.

e. A report from the prison as to the Applicants conduct whilst in prison.

f. The Applicant’s prior convictions.

The Applicant was interviewed by the Board on a number of occasions in relation to his application for parole.

The Board has been advised that the Applicant is an exemplary prisoner. The Applicant presently has full time employment outside of the prison and is in the final year of an apprenticeship. The Board has been advised that the Applicants employment will continue upon his release from prison.

Upon his release from prison the Applicant will have accommodation arranged through Bethlehem House Homeless Mens Assistance Centre. The Applicant will be provided with supported accommodation and will be assigned a case manager.

The Applicants case manager will provide him with the following assistance:-

a) Practical support;

b) Regular home visits;

c) Assistance in finding long term accommodation.

The Bord is of the view that the support provided through Bethlehem House will assist him in reintegrating back into the wider community.

The Applicant was questioned at length by the Board as to why he participated in the crimes that he did. The Applicant indicated to the Board that he was remorseful for his conduct and that it was not his intention for any person to be injured or harmed as a result of his conduct.

The Board notes that the position adopted by the Applicant in this regard was accepted by Justice Crawford (as he then was) when sentencing the Applicant.

The Board notes the following passage from the comments on passing sentence:-

“you were all parties to a highly dangerous and malicious act which went tragically wrong. None of you intended to cause personal harm to anyone in the house and particularly in the case of Hind and Douglas but also Newell, that consideration justifies shorter prison sentences than might usually be expected for murder or, in the case of Newell, for manslaughter”.

The Board has been advised that the Applicant has undergone a number of conditional releases from prison pursuant to s42 of the Corrections Act 1997. Each such period of conditional release has occurred without incident.

Taking all matters into consideration the Board is of the view that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted parole.

Paroled 22/12/08 to 26/10/2016